Rpg soldiers

[croc4 0]

Can someone answer this?, Playing against the AI of which some are RPG equiped, they will fire their RPGs at you, and while effective, you wouldn't do this in a real war /battle correct?, you would engage them with your rifle.

RPG's are meant for vehicles and not foot soldiers right?, and isn't it against the Genevia convention to use them on something other than vehicles?, for a "simulation" shouldn't the AI at least obey the rules of war, one could argue that there are no rules when it comes down to saving your arse and you have no other options, but the AI is not in that situation

I'm am not a war/military buff, so its a good chance that I'm totaly wrong

[Messiah 2]

Geneva convention says you can't fire them at people - firing them at their feet, the car they're in or wood shed they hid behind is perfectly legit...

they were obviously aiming at the grass at your feet, rather than you

depends what the SLA represent. The Taliban appear quite happy to fire whatever they wish at the Brits in Helmand, without taking much consideration for a convention they're probably never heard of, less care about.

[croc4 0]

thanks, terrorists aside, the enemy AI are part of some formal army judging by the uniforms/vehicles so they should be more prone to follow the rule of war..........

And I have had this happen on the friendly side too, so that means the U.S troops seem to disregard the rule also.

[Messiah 2]

loose morals apparently...

must admit I've never experienced one of my AI do it, but have had plenty of incoming from the SLA - I quite like it, whatever its legality in a real world application.

seeing as Sahrani is a fictional place, then one can equally summise that they never ratified the Geneva convention, thus are 'free' from its obligations (or at least until the Hague catches up with them)

[croc4 0]

My issue with it, albeit small is that you would normally just use small arms fire, since you might need the RPG to take out a vehicle at some point later in the battle so it just seems odd that you would use it in such a careless fashion.

[NoRailgunner 0]

RPG's have IRL different warheads HEAT, fragmentation, thermobaric.

IRL are no "rules of war" but often some rules of engagement (ROE).

ArmA has a fictional gamestory - but maybe you can write ROE and CCW script/addon? You're welcome.

Edit: maybe this little fix from william1 helps you

AI preventing on using AT against infantry

[Messiah 2]

this is true - Some would call it a feature of ArmA, some would call it a bug. I guess it would be nice if you could 'switch' it off via some init line coding.

mainly its down to the weapon coding. The AI are just following orders in essence - the Weapon tells them what they can and can't use it against and they blindly follow through on it.

it can be fixed by creating some supplementary code via an addon that removes the ability of the RPG and AT4 to be used by the AI against infantry. Depends how annoyed you are with it

[Heatseeker 0]

If their skill/precision is high they will rpg snipe you with pinpoint acuracy, anyway i like it and i dont, its stupid to use an RPG on a single individual in the open, when they can use a rifle, and then when that stryker/BMP arrives..oops, no more rockets .

If they would fire rpg's at enemy groups or soldiers behind cover it would make sense.. but as we all know the a.i. only fires when they have a target in sight and perfectly lined up.

[Col. Faulkner 0]

IRL are no "rules of war" but often some rules of engagement (ROE).

Which are generally based on treaty law and customary

international law.

Presumably the SLA govt. is not a signatory to the Geneva

and Hague conventions, or else they honour their treaty

obligations mainly in the breach, or the Geneva and Hague

conventions never happened in the ArmA universe, or the BIS

programmers just boobed again. Take your pick.

[th3flyboy 0]

i personally think its just a waste of a good rocket, seriously, bullets are for infantry, rockets are for vehicles, satchels are for sabotage, and mines are for ambushes simple as that.

[max power 21]

On youtube I saw some american soldiers firing an at4 into the window of a house. He missed but a blast mark with a tiny hole bored through the wall remained. That was an anti armour munition used against someone. I don't know what was going on in there but it didn't seem very intense. The russians used rpgs on the Mujahideen all the time in Afghanistan.

At any rate, the instances in which the ai will use rpgs on people increases when they appraise the situation as dangerous (like, they are in 'danger' combat mode).

This issue has come up a lot recently for some reason. Using the search feature of the forum package would have been preferable.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

RPG's are used regulary against infantry targets by both Taliban, Iraqi insurgents and the Afgan Army. Im glad the ai do it in the game. Looks really cool suddenly seeing a rocket flying towards your squad and makes up for the lack of artillary/morters.

[sparks50 0]

I just watched FMJ, and there the US soldiers is firing LAWs on vietcong snipers like its 4th of july.

but then again, Americans are immune against charges of warcrimes

[croc4 0]

thanks for the input, I know what you mean when you mention that it looks cool, I've actually been looking through the binoculars and have seen the rpg coming straight for me, just enough time to kiss my arse goodbye. however having said that, I would also like to see the AI return a lot more fire in my direction, more like a real firefight. And when they do fire their rpg's they are rarely in any danger, meaning I am out numbered by them, so I'm not sure they could consider themselves as being in danger, maybe there is a few triggers that cause them to fire them?

[Balschoiw 0]

No, it´s unscripted and has to do with the AI embedded routines. They simply use them against infantry if their combatmode and threat situation is telling them that it´s the right thing to do so. I actually remember back with OFP people were asking for this AI feature alot. Anyone who has played OFP CTF´s knows that AT weapons have been in use quite often against infantry and the players wanted this with AI aswell.

No matter how hard one tried to get a scripted shot from Ai on infantry, it didn´t really work as the AI only fired on hard targets with AT.

Anyway, I guess it´s really realistic that they use them against infantry aswell, as it´s done in real life aswell, and to highlight this, not only from the "bad guys" per definition.

I also think that the convention limiting the use of AT weapons is kind of obsolete anyway as it´s simply a tool that kills fast and precise.

Noone has objections when a tank flattens a house with fighters in it, but the use of AT weapons against soft targets should be forbidden ?

I don´t know where this roots from but imo it makes only little sense.

What I would like to see with Arma is a finetuning of the AT useage of AI units. Imo they are using them a tad too often. It should be dependant on various aspects, be it number of enemies in a certain distance to AT unit, be it the chance to hit a lot with one shot because of the density of enemy units in one place, or the use of AT weapons against fortifications or objects between the AT unit and the enemy. Right now they are a bit too triggerhappy with AT.

I believe their behaviour has already been changed with one of the Arma patches as they totally freaked out with 1.00 but still BIS could still tone it down a little bit more for my taste.

From a mission-editor perspective it would certainly better to limit them to hard targets only as in some missions they end up with no AT ammo when they actually face their hard targets on the spot. They have killed some infantry guys on the way to their target with AT and don´t keep in mind that they are needed later on. This is a bit bad. Ordering them to hold fire does only work up to a point as they will fire ,no matter what, if they feel to do so.

An init command that limits them on hard targets only could be helpfull there, but I guess that´s just another of those suggestions that will not be taken into consideration.

[subs17 9]

Geneva convention says you can't fire them at people - firing them at their feet, the car they're in or wood shed they hid behind is perfectly legit...

they were obviously aiming at the grass at your feet, rather than you  

depends what the SLA represent. The Taliban appear quite happy to fire whatever they wish at the Brits in Helmand, without taking much consideration for a convention they're probably never heard of, less care about.

Where in the Geneva convention does it say this?

First Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field" (first adopted in 1864, last revision in 1949)

Second Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea" (first adopted in 1949, successor of the 1907 Hague Convention X)

Third Geneva Convention "relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" (first adopted in 1929, last revision in 1949)

Fourth Geneva Convention "relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War" (first adopted in 1949, based on parts of the 1907 Hague Convention IV)

Nothing in the Hague convention either .

[max power 21]

Quote[/b] ]

Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 29 July 1899.

SECTION II

ON HOSTILITIES

CHAPTER I

On means of injuring the enemy, sieges, and bombardments

Art. 22. The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.

Art. 23. Besides the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially prohibited

(a) To employ poison or poisoned arms;

(b) To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

© To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

(d) To declare that no quarter will be given;

(e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;

(f) To make improper use of a flag of truce, the national flag or military ensigns and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;

(g) To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war.

Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. Geneva, 10 October 1980.

[...]

' Basing themselves ' on the principle of international law that the right of the parties to an armed conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited, and on the principle that prohibits the employment in armed conflicts of weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering,

[...]

Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. Geneva, 10 October 1980. Amendment article 1, 21 December 2001.

Dude, it's been all over those protocols for 100 years.

[subs17 9]

DOH there is a mention in Article 23

Quote[/b] ]

To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;

But it raises questions as I doubt in most wars anyone follows such a rule. My own opinion regarding the RPGs is that its a tool for a job in certain situations such as armoured vehicles or troops in protected areas such as inside buildings but if you were about to shoot an RPG at a tank and suddenly a bad guy saw you it may be a situation where the weapon could save your life at the cost of that one rocket.(could ultimately cost a battle in some situations so you would have to weigh it up)

[wamingo 1]

Very interesting... but let's instead discuss what would be cool in arma - I think it's fine when they fire rockets at you. Maybe the AI precision is a bit high though. Player's have trouble firing with the same precision so I say they need to be tuned down slightly against infantry. Maybe against vehicles too actually.

And maybe the splash damage is slightly low, but not sure.

An important point in my opinion is, that too often, in game, an rpg soldier with the rpg selected is super-vulnerable and therefore is too often an easy kill. So it's only fair that there's a slight chance of him unleashing some fun at you.

discuss

[Guest Ti0n3r]

I would like some kind of squad leader command like "4, don't waste your rockets!"

[walker 0]

I would like some kind of squad leader command like "4, don't waste your rockets!"

Hi all

And there we have the sensible suggestion

Kind Regards walker

[Tigerhund 0]

There are AT-weapons that are comparable with the RPG-7 that can be used for - and fired directly at people, like our (Sweden) Carl Gustav. Here, we have a high explosive anti personell round for that purpose and can be set to airburst over an entrenched enemy. If you want to, you can fire it directly into a crowd of people if set to that distance and have it detonate in the center. It contains thousands of steel pellets that does the job. It also has a flachette round that is even worse. The RPG produces shrapnel too. Not from steel pellets, but the shell of the grenade itself when it detonates.

So it does not suprise me that the AI fires their RPG´s at you. It is effective, isn´t it? In many cases, it doesn´t matter what the Geneva Convention says, like for instance, the .50 BMG round that is fired from the M2 or the M82A1 SASR-rifle is not really allowed to be fired directly at people, but they are anyway, right? Weapons that produce shrapnel are allowed in war because they are not Nuclear, Biological or Chemical weapons, unless they wound or kill indiscriminatly (when innocent civillians get in the way)

[phawkins1988 0]

I don't like this feature - it means that the AI often won't have rockets left for when it needs them, and the AIs more effective with a rifle anyway. I was also under the impression that the AT4 in real life was not very effective against personnel.

That said, if you don't like the feature, there are mods which disable it.

[Tigerhund 0]

@phawkins1988: Depends on the whereabouts of the personnel, mate. If inside a house, an increase of air pressure inside the room and secondary shrapnel from walls/radiators, etc will definetly wound or kill. If inside a confined space, like an APC, etc... well, it will flash burn you.

The round itself produces shrapnel from the body of the round and its rather large fins, and let´s not forget the concussion blast. So it can be effective against personnel too. The hypersonic jet of molten copper is not the only advantage of HEAT-rounds.

[croc4 0]

Well we can't have it both ways either the rpgs are armor peircing or they are anti personel rounds. The real question is, if you like them firing at you, why?, I think if your honest with yourself, it fills a void in the games immersion. I think that is the real problem, lack of immersion.